tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 30, 2011 4:00am-5:00am EDT
thanks for being here. >> thanks, lawrence. you can have the last word at our blog, thelastword.msnbc.com. follow my treats at lawrence. "the rachel maddow show" is up next. good evening, lawrence. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. we have news ahead on libya where things today did not go the way you might have expected them to go, given the president's speech last night. we've got a heads up on something important happening at the united states supreme court. our newsroom name for it on the staff, sons of citizens united. it is not getting national attention yet, we find it spooky. we also have the wisconsin secretary of state on tonight for the interview, because the union stripping thing in wisconsin we keep hearing is over is not only not over, it is dissolving into chaos at this point. that is coming up in the course of this next hour. but we start tonight with conservatism. what the word conservative means in america now.
the choice, the conservative movement, and the republican party have to make between being authoritarian conservatives or libertarian conservatives. do american conservatives favor big, intrusive government, or do they favor small, leave me alone government. if you ask them, if you ask just about anybody that identifies as a conservative, nobody ever says they are on this side, right? nobody calls themselves an authoritarian anything, let alone authoritarian anything. i am for big, intrusive government, vote for me. they always say they are on this side, right? they are all on the libertarian side, according to them. no matter what kind of policies they all like, they all say they are for smaller government, limited government, personal freedom. that is the conservative brand, right? >> the commitment to limited government and individual
liberty and freedom in this country. >> strong on conservative limited government, do i believe in smaller limited government giving power back to the people, yes. >> importance of limited government and with the blessing of self government, but the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government. renewed commitment to limited government. we need to reclaim our american system of limited government. >> their vision of limited government is what made america the greatest nation in the history of mankind. >> because of my upbringing, i believe in things like limited government. >> limited government. >> we stand firm. we stand for limited government. >> we cannot take for granted the case for limited government and individual freedom. >> pretty clear, right? limited government. restrained government. humble government. tiny government. that's what they are selling. american conservatives, that leaves you alone. the new governor of florida rick scott. he just issued an executive
order that will mandate fo workers in that state at least quarterly, at least quarterly. when the governor became governor, he transferred to his wi h ctrli srein fopritomnyhado drug tesng. he says that has nothing to do with this executive order, he just likes the idea of the government forcing drug tests on people it can force drug tests on. there is a fourth amendment protection we have in invasive drug testing like this. you're supposed to only be able to do it if, for example, there are grounds for suspicion, or in the case of very specific kinds of jobs. but rick scott, despite legal restrictions on doing what he wants to do is going for it anyway. he is at least going to try. the state will pay the cost of himay ug stg li icot. the state of course will pay what is expected to be the spectacular cost of drug testing, tens, if not hundreds
of thousands of people quarterly at least, and florida already has a bad budget deficit. but any cost is apparently worth it, because under rick scott, his state government wants mass forceable drug tests, sand so it shall have them. is that small, leave me alone government or is tg, intrusive government? in the great state of michigan, the new republican governor there is a man named rick snyder. his signature legislation since he has been governor is to establish what's being called financial martial law, or fiscal martial law. his administration will decide if your town is in a financial emergency. if snyder administration declares a financial emergency in your town, a financial emergency czar will be appointeappointed, sent to your town, given the power to abolish your town. the town can be dissolved on the state's financial emergency person. anyone publicly elected can be
dissolved on the say so if the governor gives the nod. he is taking that much power. is that small, leave me alone government or is that big, intrusive government? the interview tonight, we will be talking with the secretary of state of the great state of wisconsin, where there has been national attention to wisconsin republicans stripping peoples' rights and abilities to join unions. your freedom to associate in this country is guaranteed by the constitution, free to join a union if you want to. to the extent the government can be used to limit that right of yours, republicans in wisconsin and in ohio and in indiana and new hampshire and florida and tennessee and oklahoma and nebraska, republican governs and
legs tours in all these states all over the country are stretching the power of government to try to end that right of yours. a history professor at the university of wisconsin published a long study guide online earlier this month, looking at what might explain this policy push not just in wisconsin but in all these other states all at once. the professor's name is william cronon. he is not only not a liberal activist, he is no shlub. president elect of the american historical association, mccarthy genius award winner. one of the most distinguished professors in the united states of america. but after he wrote this academic piece online about conservative groups using model legislation to push certain policies in the state, the republican party of the state of wisconsin filed an open records request demanding to read professor cronon's e-mails, taking a law designed to make law transparent to the public and using it to force into the public e-mails written by a university professor whose academic writings put him on the wrong side of the republican party on an issue they feel sensitive about.
you speak out, the government will use all the leverage they can muster over you to pry open your life. small, leave me alone government or the other kind? we probably should have seen this thing coming. after the big democratic wins in elections in 2006 and 2008, the pendulum swinging back to the republican party ever since has been a swing back to a specific kind of conservatism. a specific kind that is all about government that is as big and intrusive as possible. one of the first statewide elections after the big democratic win in 2008 was the virginia governor's race, right? november, 2009, virginians ecd veofovnmt ou sch toerl and procedurally prefer married couples over cohas been taors, homosexuals, or foreign kayors. not only is that not leave me alone conservatism, that is big
government crusade against the foreign kayors. governor bob mcdonald has been sort of like that. as with that professor in wisconsin having the republican party demand his e-mails, in virginia, it is governor mcdonald's attorney general that demanded to search e-mails of a virginia science professor, whose research on climate issues apparently did not meet with government approval. can't you just smell the freedom, the liberty, the humble, restrained government leaving people free to go about their business? the latest in karn agency of this breed of conservatism weirdly involves this show or at least my last name. this talking points memo turned up a new demand by the conservative movement, new demand by the right to obtain the private e-mails of people to whom it is busy selling the idea
that conservatives really want to just leave people alone. the labor study faculty at the university of michigan at wayne state university and at michigan state have all just had their e-mails demanded by a right wing think tank, specifically demanding to see any e-mail from any professor at the labor faculty at any of these schools, any e-mail that includes scott walker, wisconsin, madison, or maddow. it is possible they think that maddow is just a common misspelling of madison, but if that's not the case, they mean me, this show. the right wing group that is demanding any e-mails that include references to me or the show, called the mackinac center, funded by secret donations, in that they don't disclose names of individuals or corporations that give them money, but they are well funded and we know through tax records about donations to them by the charitable foundations of a lot
of billionaires and corporations frankly. mother jones did a nice piece explaining who these guys are, what we know about their funding from foundations like the one run by charles koch, of koch brothers fams. also the walton foundation, the walton family that runs walmart. edgar and alpha prince foundation, you remember them from black water fame. all those foundations fund the mackinac center. they wrote what looks to be the basis of that financial martial law policy in michigan, michigan republican governor rick snyder. this show was the first national news outlet to report in detail on that policy. now the mackinac center is demanding the e-mails of anybody that could be an expert on that subject in michigan that might have the at that march tee to type the word maddow in any context in an e-mail. house that leave me alone personal liberty thing working
out for you? americans like this idea. americans like the idea of small c, small government, leave me alone conservatism. this is good political branding. this is a good sales pitch for any politician. the conservative movement and republican party have done very well for themselves selling this idea, small leave me alone government, selling this idea to america. now the country is figuring out that even though this is what they bought, this is is not what they got when they took it home, unwrapped it. wisconsin governor scott walker won in november by six points. latest polls say if the election were held today, he would lose to that same democrat by seven points. kasich won by two points. today he would lose to that same democrat by 15 points. rick scott won in november by one point. today he would lose to that same democrat by 19 points. michigan republican governor rick snyder won in november by a whopping 18 points.
today he has swung 20 points the other direction, and he would lose by two. yeah. but you say the big intrusive government republicans, they aren't up for re-election now. democrats can't capitalize on the republican big government overreach, can they? turns out they can. and it is in progress. that's next. look, we've all dealt with the itching of athlete's foot. i can't just wash it away. killing it takes clinical strength. i only use lotrimin ultra.
everywhere that republican governors are pushing union stripping measures, the public is not only pretty dramatically against that, but they are turning pretty dramatically against the republicans pushing for that, too. nationally, it is the democratic party's challenge to make that translate in november. this november and preferably next november, too. but you know, in wisconsin, november seems to be coming early. november coming early in wisconsin looks like this. >> i'm 85 years old. but i have never seen anything like this. >> we've been working the recall efforts against the republicans. this is the beginning of a movement. >> people open the door gladly, say we heard you were out in the community, we've been waiting for you to come over here and get our signature. >> our govnor decides to give $117 million in tax breaks to corporations. now they want to make cuts to education. i can see class size going up to 35 to 40 kids in a class.
>> as a republican, my entire life, i am appalled at what scott walker and the republicans did. it involved my kids and school. >> whether you're a college student like me or a kindergarten, it is hurting everyone. >> this is for my wife, my friends, my neighbors, my community. >> republicans declared war on the middle class. and with this recall campaign, we are fighting back and we're going to win. >> the progressive change campaign committee that posted this ad today. they posted it, said they wanted to raise 100 grand to run it, and next time i checked, they got their $100,000. their thermometer was up to the top. you need a bigger thermometer. in wisconsin, public opinion is very very strongly against that union stripping bill. the fight is not just electoral, it is legal. republicans passed that bill by taking the unusual step by stripping it out of the budget,
even though they called it the budget repair bill. they relabeled the thing nonfiscal, said it did not therefore require a quorum to pass it. and though democrats said what they were doing was illegal, republicans noted on their own to pass it. the judge issued an injunction blocking that bill from officially becoming law until the qutionf her it was paed legally could be soed out. ott walker administrion effectively ignored the judge's ruling. they said you know, we think the bill is law, and they started to implement it. today, the judge ruled again, saying her earlier ruling must have been quote, either misunderstood or ignored. this time the judge said with some insistence that the union stripping law is, in fact, not in effect in wisconsin, it is enjoined. remarkably after this second ruling, the scott walker administration still declared they're going ahead with implementing the new union stripping law, which maybe makes
we think we should stop calling it a law, because it doesn't seem legal. joining us, wisconsin secretary of state, doug la follette. >> good to be here, rachel, to talk to you and the people across america. >> let me ask you if i got anything wrong in my introduction. this has been a fast moving and at times crazy process. did i screw anything up? >> you pretty much got it right. it is pretty complicated. but the summary you made is what's going on. the administration decides to ignore the court ruling, and try to make this act a law by the back way of doing it. i think they should be seriously punished by the court for what they're doing. >> in terms of that specific issue of publishing it, as i understand, it is your responsibility as secretary of state to publish laws formally which allows them to take
effect. am i right the judge's ruling blocked you from publishing the law, but the walker administration went around your office and just had another part of state government publish it instead and called that making it law? >> well, that's right. but there's more to it. the normal procedure is i receive the act, schedule publication, and i did that under the law. then the judge issued a temporary restraining order. but the restraining order said two things. it said she blocked any further implementation of the law and enjoined the secretary of state from publishing. so there's two parts, and the walker administration totally ignored the first part. she said no further implementation. and the secretary of state should not publish it. >> now that the judge has so emphatically reiterated what seems to have been the terms of her earlier injunction, how do you expect the walker administration will react, what
they're going to do next? >> i don't know. they've already behaved quieter at cli, a little irresponsible to ignore the orders of the court. they seem, pardon my language, hell bent to get this passed, and from my point of view as secretary of state, there's sort of two parts of this. my responsibility to publish the law or not based on court orders and following the rules. the other part of my thinking as a many, many year statewide elected official is the substance of that law. it is wide sweeping, gives the governor 37 new political appoint ees, changes healthcare. this is a major step backward for what i always dreamed of as wisconsin, a progressive state. so the substance of it is very disconcerting to me, but the
walker administration seems as i said hell bent to push this thing through. >> in terms of how hell bent they are, i wonder, if there's going to be a serious and expensive legal path for the walker administration in trying to force this change through the way they have been approaching it so far, do they have other options for making this into law that would be less expensive, less hassle, more direct for the state? >> exactly. exactly. and i've been saying that the last two weeks. today the judge said it. the judge said she doesn't understand why they just don't go back and start over, do it right, introduce the same bill. hold a public hearing. give proper notice. let the public comment and then pass it, if they have the votes, the governor can sign it. it will come to my office, and if it's done properly, i would publish it. the judge said why are we wasting thousands of dollars of taxpayer money all this time
when they could do it over and do it right. >> why do you think they are not doing it that way, do you have any insight? >> i am not sure i have any more insight other than the fact i have been in politics now for many, many years. they may not have the votes. at this point we know what's in the bill. we didn't when they had that sort of quick possibly open meeting violation get together one night, and pushed this thing through. now the public and many legislators, including republicans and democrats, know much more about this legislation and there might not be enough votes to pass it a second time. >> doug la follette, wisconsin secretary of state. i wanted to talk to you about this for a long time. thank you. >> great. enjoyed it. >> thanks. today in ohio, a committee in the house approved a union stripping bill that is even more extreme than the one i was just
discussing with mr. la follette, the one that con vulsed wisconsin and grabbed the nation's attention. democrats in ohio knew they didn't have votes in the legislature to stop the ohio bill. so when republicans passed it on a party line vote in this committee today, the democrats' contribution to that was that they delivered 65,000 signatures of ohioans saying they were against what they were doing. they say they can't stop this union stripping bill from being passed in the legislature and signed by governor john kasich in all likelihood, but say they can get it repealed by voters on the ballot this november. and frankly, polling shows the democrats are right. how would you like to be a republican down ticket from that question on the ballot in november? more ahead, including how conservatives have dragged this show into their mess in the great state of michigan, coming up.
the unemployment rate in the great state of michigan is 10.4%. it has been above the 10% mark for longer than in any other state, so jobs, jobs, jobs, right? michigan's republican governor rick snyder says that is totally what he is working on. what he has actually been working on is a bill suggested by a right wing think tank that doesn't disclose its funders that would give snyder administration the power to declare a financial emergency in your town, then abolish your town. it would give a financial emergency manager the ability not only to abolish your town but to fire everyone you ever elected there to represent you. when it emerged that the same think tank that suggested the financial martial law bill in
michigan was using state open records laws to see any e-mails from state professors that mentioned things about the wisconsin union fight or that mentioned the word maddow, i want to let you know we called that conservative think tank. they are -- if you phonetically read the name, it is mackinac. they prefer to you called mackinac. i am going to call them mackinac. we called them today, asked them to be on the show, they said no. we also asked the charles cook foundation that funds mackinac, we got no response from them. asked the walton family foundation to be on the show, this is the walton family from walmart. they also fund this conservative think tank in michigan. got no response from the walton foundation. we then asked the edgar and alpha prince foundation to be on the show since they, too, fund mackinac. the prince foundation did not so much say no as they did say they
had no idea what we were talking about, then they seemed alarmed we called them, and then they hung up on us. but hot on the heels of this abolish your town financial emergency power assertion, michigan governor rick snyder this week decided to do something directly related to jobs. he is tackling unemployment in michigan, by which i mean yesterday governor snyder passed a measure passed by the republican led michigan legislature that would cut unemployment benefits in the state by six weeks, starting next year. governor snyder and michigan republicans are tackling the unemployment problem in their state by making sure people without jobs in michigan get less help. let's just say you don't care whether or not the approximately half million people that don't have jobs in michigan have to eat cat food for six weeks because of this measure. let's not even talk about what unemployment benefits mean for each individual person who gets them. let's not even talk about whether or not state government
should prior advertise the social safety nets that are all between say half a million working and middle class michigan ganlders and abject poverty. let's just get cold hearted about it and talk instead about what unemployment benefits mean to the economy, what they mean not just to the person receiving them, but to everybody else making this slow recovery from the great recession. here is the cold hearted thing about people that don't have jobs. people that don't have jobs tend also to not have a lot of money, but they do still have to survive. so when they get money in the form of, say, unemployment benefits, they tend to spend that money right away. when they get a dollar, they do not file it away for a rainy day, it is raining already for them. if they get a dollar, they spend it on something they really need to spend it on, say food. really efficiently. money spent on unemployment gets pumped back into the economy because of the nature of what it means to be unemployed.
moody's looked at the effectiveness of different economic policies in terms of likely impact they would have on the economy as a whole. they found that for every dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits, we get $1.61 back in economic growth. so michigan republicans' idea of dealing with high unemployment in the state by making life harder for the unemployed isn't just mean, it's bad for michigan's economy. instead of taking lemons, making lemonade, they are taking them and started to squeeze them into eyeballs an open cuts. confronted with a lot of people in the state already hurting, governor snyder and michigan republicans are making the whole state pay for the privilege of hurting those people just a little bit more. joining us now, dean baker, economist, codirector of the center for economic and policy research. thanks very much for joining us. >>has r vi mon >> what will be the likely economic impact in michigan of cutting way back on unemployment checks like this?
>> no, it's just further downward pressure on the economy. the basic story we've seen across the country, michigan more than anywhere, is there is incredible shortfall of demand. we had a collapse in the housing bubble that had been driving the economy, that's gone. destroyed 1.4 trillion dollars in demand. we need the government to come in and fill that gap. unemployment insurance is a great way to do that, so again as you said, apart of what it does to workers and families, this is cutting demand from michigan's economy. fewer jobs. how could that be a good story. >> at the federal level, we are seeing some of the same proposals. house republicans want to cut food stamps very dramatically federally. would that have the same kind of economic impact across the country? >> it is the same story, meaning people getting food stamps, the same situation with the unemployed. they need to spend that money. they need the food. and the bizarre story, the republicans seem to have this idea, at least implicitly that somehow you have firms out there, you have stores,
factories, offices, they are going to go hire people because they see hey, the government cut food stamps, good time to hire. i don't know anyone like that. i take it to going to the stores and asking are you hiring people if the government cuts food stamps? i haven't found anyone that says yes. >> republicans brand themselves as the fiscally conservative party, and often enough, it works. people have that impression of republicans, even if they don't think that about republican policies, but how is it they have been able to sell the idea that giving more money to people that already have the most of it has a positive economic impact, and that there will be a positive economic impact of taking money from people that have the least? >> well, i think basically they've been playing against no opposition. here you toss the grenade of president obama. he's supposed to be the one calling the shots, setting the agenda. he should have been out there saying look, we're in a recession because wall street went nuts. government has to make up the demand.
i don't want to do it. no one wanted to be in a situation with 10% unemployment, but that is what he was in. the government has to make up the demand. that means we have to spend money, run large deficits. unfortunately the president hasn't made that case and it is hard to do that in the absence of the leader of the party. >> we are facing this in terms of a national political debate. but when you look at the way it is playing out in the states, it is devastating. i mean, this is a long term coordinated project of the right to change economic policies in a way that take resources away from people with the least and shift them towards people with the most. mcclatchy ran a hard hitting piece on how states are prying open huge holes in their budget by cutting their revenues, particularly by cutting corporate taxes, even though it makes budget deficits worse. they say it is somehow fiscally conservative. would it make a difference for the president to make the argument at the federal level if the states are already sold on this, implementing it, paying
the price, and still people don't understand it? >> there's two things. one, he is the par deem of the presidency. from the stand point of state and local governments, this is the backdrop. republicans have been in this context of oh, my god, we have these huge deficits, and i realize it is a totally contradictory story. we have huge deficits, we have to cut unemployment benefits, education spending, healthcare spending. same time, they slip money out to their buddies and corporations that pay for their campaigns. that's a contradiction. but nevertheless, the president has to get out there and say in the downturn we need to spend money any way we can because that is what it will take to make jobs. people coming through the jobs buying things. if people don't have money to buy things, employers aren't going to hire people. >> i think whether or not president obama takes your advice, we are starting to see with wisconsin, ohio and other states, we are starting to see
democrats in the states not only that understand that but are willing to crow about it because they find it immediately resonates with people as soon as you explain it. this may be a bottom up thing. dean baker, always a pleasure to have you here. thank you. >> thanks for having me on. president obama's speech on the war in libya anticipated and answered a lot of questions about america's involvement in that war, except for what happens now, what happens next, and when and how we plan to leave? how we know when it's over? pulitzer prize winning columnist eugene robinson joins us next. ugh, my feet are killin' me.
well, we're here to get you custom orthotic inserts. we can't afford that. yes, we can. dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic center. foot-care scientists are behind it. ( man ) you have flat feet... no way... way. orthotic 440 is recommended. it recommends the custom-fit orthotic insert that's best for your feet. you'll get all-day relief. for your tired, achy feet. and you could save a couple hundred bucks. sweet. this is great. dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic center. thank you... who are you talking to ? for locations, see drscholls.com.
the obama administration cannot single-handedly control or determine the outcome of the war in libya, but it can control the level of american commitment to the war and how much the u.s. is willing to devote to that war in terms of money and time and equipment and man power and risk. in terms of america's lead military role in the war thus far, the obama administration has been saying from the start that the u.s. would hand that off in a matter of days, not weeks.
11 days ago in a meeting with congressional leaders, president obama reportedly assured members of congress that the handover would be, and i quote, in days, and not weeks. defense secretary bob gates echoed that time line on board a military plane a few days later to moscow. >> we expect in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others. we will continue to support the coalition. we will be a member of the coalition, a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role. >> in a matter of days, we will not have the preeminent role. that was over a week ago. fast forward to sunday night when nato supreme allied commander in europe posted this update on facebook, yes, seriously, a facebook update. he said, quote, nato is now in charge of all operations in libya, humanitarian, arms embargo, no-fly zone, and protection of civilians. international approach! exclamation point, on facebook, yeah.
but last night the american commander in chief seemed to be under the impression that the transition of all operations in libya from u.s. hands to international hands, last night president obama seemed to be under the impression that that transition had not happened yet. >> last night nato decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting libyan civilians. this transfer from the united states to nato will take place on wednesday. >> it will happen on wednesday, as in it will happen tomorrow. yet in an interview with nbc's brian williams today, the president described the whole thing as a nato mission already. >> well, keep in mind that what we've already done is transition so that this is now a nato and international mission. >> if your head is spinning, you are not alone. the time line of the united states standing down as nato stands up, it is not the only murky but really super important detail about what happens next
in the libyan war. there's also the matter of moammar gadhafi himself. it is official u.s. policy that gadhafi should go, that he should step down as the leader of libya. but will the united states and nato use military force to make that policy a reality, to force gadhafi out, either by going after gadhafi himself or by arming the rebels who are trying to do it themselves. on the last point, on the possibility of arming the rebels, here is what he had to say in that brian williams interview. >> i am not ruling it out, but also not ruling it in. we're not taking anything off the table at this point. our primary military goal is to protect civilian populations and to set up the no-fly zone. our primary strategic goal is for gadhafi to step down. >> strategic goal for gadhafi to step down, military goal to protect civilian populations. the primary strategic goal for gadhafi to step down was front
and center in london today when secretary of state hillary clinton met with four dozen international leaders. that's a crowded room. of gadhafi, she said we believe he must go. we're working with the international community to try to achieve that outcome. leaders from britain and cutter said the same, and the secretary general of the united nations announced he would be dispatching an envoy to libya to mediate between the gadhafi regime and the rebels. despite the uncertainty on when the u.s. steps back, however it is willing to go for what the u.s. calls the primary strategic goal, there is one thing the administration seems certain of, it is something we talked about in the analysis of the president's speech, it is something the president wanted to make crystal clear again today. >> well, as i indicated last night, i think it's important not to take this particular situation and then try to project some sort of obama doctrine we are going to apply in a cookie cutter fashion
across the board. >> i think that is clear, even if it is not clear to the beltway press, it is clear that the administration shows libya does not set a precedent for the next war, i guess. but what about this current one? what about libya? how long is the u.s. on the hook for this one, now that we are in it? joining us now, eugene robinson, msnbc political analyst and pulitzer prize winning columnist at "the washington post." thanks for being here. >> great to be here, rachel. >> you wrote at the post this week about libya, that the goal must be to prevent the bloodbath, not just reschedule. what did you mean by that. >> well, you can obviously bomb gadhafi's troops and keep them from sweeping into benghazi, indeed, that was done by really the first wave of french barrage jets that wiped out the column of tanks. he can do a lot of things. if you leave gadhafi in charge in tripoli, even if he just has
the city of tripoli, number one, he is going to terrorize the civilians in tripoli, because that's what he does. he terrorizes civilians. and so you're not i guess fulfilling your mission if you're not protecting them, and if you leave him there, his forces are going to try to take back territory. so it seems to me that in order to fulfill the nato mandate of protecting civilians, you have to go for regime change, yet that's not what we're doing. so i am confused. >>herede me blt ca f w iisot u. military objective to kill gadhafi or force him out, but they're not pursuing regime change with gadhafi as a military mission because therein lies the road to baghdad. did the president make a clear case about why the u.s. shouldn't do that, a clear enough case that would justify leaving gadhafi in power, even
if some other military objectives were achieved? >> well, i can understand the case for not using military means to pursue regime change, but my point is that if we are to fulfill what the president says is the nato mission, is the mission that our military is pursuing, which is to protect civilians from the deprivations gadhafi will inflict, then i don't know how you do that and still leave him in charge. >> does it make sense to have a difference between a u.s. policy that gadhafi should be gone and a military goal that is not aiming at that? is war policy by other means and is it conceivable to have the sort of not just conceptual divide between those things but actually an operational divide between the two things, to try to get gadhafi out by any means other than what the military is
doing? >> i don't see it, maybe it is possible, but i don't see why you would do that. if in fact our policy is that gadhafi must go, then you've got the military in there, they are bombing, they are doing what the military does to tell them, but don't try to further our policy, i don't think you can really separate those two, and that's kind of the contradiction that i think you can drive a semi through here. the other thing frankly is that we may be talking semantics when we talk about does it get handed over to nato on wednesday or thursday or next tuesday. you know, what is nato? nato has at its heart the united states military capabilities, so it's not as if we're going away. >> eugene robinson, msnbc political analyst, pulitzer prize winning columnist for "the washington post." forgive me for asking the same question five different ways.
i realize there is no answer to it, and that's why we talked about it the whole time. thank you very much, gene. >> great to be here. back when a republican was in the white house, that wholexd partisanship ending at the water's edge, is that something both parties paid lib service to? now that there's a democrat in the white house, the idea of patriotism looks different. ed schultz has that next. you don't want to miss it. on this show, you know that citizens united ruling, giving corporations the right to spend what they like in elections, unlimited corporate spending, turns out that was just the beginning. the bigs may soon be getting bigger. we have a warning for you on that one. please stay with us. whew! i need a break from programming
all these car insurance discounts, online. i'm dishing out discounts all day. doesn't the esurance website do most of, your work? "bew!," safe-driver discount. "bew," homeowner discount, "zing," multi-car discount. "sizzap," everyone has your online dating profile. huh? you dj on the weekends? nts, nts, nts, nts, nts, nts... [ female announcer ] tons of discounts. see for yourself at esurance. technology when you want it. people when you don't.
i have one more thing for you about libya. today the pentagon announced that so far the u.s. military has spent a total of $550 million in our war with libya. the pentagon says about 60% of that is the cost of the bombs and missiles our forces have shot at and dropped on the libyan military there. so $550 million and it was reportedly spent in the first ten days of the bombing campaign. works out to about $55 million a day. $55 million a day.
$55 million each day. >> that's the $600 million a day question that is being asked now as we assess the cost incurred by americans as we support the no fly zone. >> now, before you complain i think she is running for president so i think that's why this matters but it is not clear where sarah palin got the idea we are spending more than ten times per day in libya what wei really are spending. one guess? cost of libya intervention $600 million for first week, pentagon says. maybe sarah palin only read the first six words of that and then got tired and stopped. you know, not everybody has time to read past the first six words of every news headline so really maybe this is on abc for not writing that better. maybe they could have done it like this. first week of libya costs $600 -- no. that's seven words. how about this? wait. one other idea. wait! libya, week one $600 million.
maybe you don't think you're at risk for heart attack or stroke but if you've been diagnosed with p.a.d., or have pain or heaviness in your legs, i want to talk to you. you may have heard of poor leg circulation, which could be peripheral artery disease, or p.a.d. with p.a.d., if you have poor circulation in your legs, you may also have poor circulation in your heart or in your brain, your risk for heart attack or stroke is more than doubled with p.a.d. now, ask yourself: am i at risk? if you're not sure, call for this free information kit to learn more. [ female announcer ] call the toll free number on the screen now to find out what the risks of p.a.d. really are
you'll find a 7-point checklist that helps you understand what could be putting you at risk. if you have symptoms, you'll learn how treating symptoms is different from reducing your risk. you'll also learn about lifestyle changes and treatment options that can help reduce your risk for heart attack and stroke. there's even a discussion guide for you to bring to your doctor that can help you discuss p.a.d. together. call the toll free number on the screen for your free information kit today. the risk is real. take the next step. call today.
the u.s. supreme court is one of the secretive of u.s. government except when it's not and tips its hand far enough you can count the little curls by the jack of heart's little chin which the court has just done in a case shaping up to be the least populist thing that's happened to u.s. democracy since the last time this court ruled in a case like this in citizens united. with that ruling last year the roberts court gave corporations the right to spend as much as they wanted directlyor or against political candidat. since republicans make a political point of keeping corporations as happy as possible you can guess which side gets most of the corporate cash. conservatives get the post citizens united special interest corporate crash 6-1.
yesterday the supreme court heard a new case about an arizona clean elections law that offers candidates who do not want to rely on unlimited corporate cash, an alternative by means of public matching funds. did the justices tip their hands about what they think about this arizona law? justice elena kagan, quote, i think the purpose of this law is to prevent corruption. justice kennedy, do you think it would be a fair characterization of this law to say that its purpose and its effect are to produce less speech in political campaigns? yeah. justice kennedy is the probable swing vote. this case the son of citizens united looks to be heading down the same 5-4 road. if you are a candidate who isn't likely to attract corporate campaign dollars and say you want to go to d.c. to fight for union rights this would be bad news. after citizens united you could try to get corporate money or you could go for public funding. you still had a chance at both. if the court declares arizona's law unconstitutional, court-martial money will get that much closer to being the only means of running a real campaign.